← University
Working With Adjusters: Roles, Rights, and Friction Points
0 of 6

A mid-sized food processing company in southwestern Ontario had maintained commercial property and business interruption coverage through a national insurer for 8 years without filing a significant claim. The policy, renewed annually with coverage limits adjusted to reflect the company's growing operations, included endorsements for equipment breakdown, spoilage, and extended business interruption tied to supply chain disruptions. The company employed approximately 120 workers across 2 shifts and supplied prepared food products to institutional clients including hospitals, schools, and long-term care facilities throughout the region.

In the 3rd week of operations following a scheduled equipment upgrade, a refrigeration system failure resulted in catastrophic spoilage of inventory valued by the company at approximately $340,000. The failure also damaged temperature-sensitive processing equipment and forced a production shutdown lasting 19 days while replacement parts were sourced and installed. During the shutdown, the company lost contracts with 2 institutional clients who could not wait for production to resume and required immediate alternative suppliers. The company's internal estimates placed total losses, including property damage, spoiled inventory, lost revenue, and contract penalties, at approximately $1.2 million.

The insurer assigned the claim to an independent adjusting firm rather than handling it through staff adjusters. The lead adjuster retained by the independent firm began the investigation within 5 business days of the loss notification, requesting extensive documentation including maintenance records for the refrigeration system, inventory logs, supplier contracts, and 3 years of financial statements to support the business interruption component. The company's risk manager, who had limited experience with commercial claims of this magnitude, found the documentation requests broader than anticipated and the timeline for responses shorter than seemed workable given the operational disruption the company was still managing.

Within 6 weeks of the loss, disagreements emerged on multiple fronts. The adjuster's preliminary assessment valued the spoiled inventory at $195,000 rather than the company's claimed $340,000, citing questions about the inventory valuation methodology and the condition of certain products prior to the refrigeration failure. The adjuster also questioned whether the lost institutional contracts fell within the policy's business interruption coverage or represented consequential losses beyond the policy's scope. Correspondence between the adjuster and the company's risk manager became increasingly formal, with each party citing policy language to support divergent interpretations.

The company retained a public adjuster to assist with documentation and presentation of the claim. The insurer's adjuster acknowledged the public adjuster's involvement but noted that the retention would not alter the insurer's coverage analysis. The claim remained unresolved, with the company facing ongoing financial pressure from the production disruption while navigating an adjustment process that had become adversarial in tone and uncertain in outcome.

Escalation: When and How to Go Over the Adjuster's Head

Insurance claims represent a negotiated process between policyholders seeking indemnification and insurers assessing coverage and quantum. In the vast majority of cases, this process unfolds through direct communication between the claimant and an assigned adjuster, whether that adjuster is a staff employee of the insurer or an independent adjuster retained to handle the file. The relationship between these parties is meant to be collaborative, with both working toward a fair and timely resolution consistent with the policy terms. Yet this relationship does not always function smoothly. Disputes arise over coverage interpretations, valuation methodologies, documentation requirements, and timelines. When these disputes become entrenched and communication with the assigned adjuster proves unproductive, claimants and their representatives must understand when and how to escalate matters beyond that initial point of contact. Escalation is neither an aggressive tactic nor a sign of bad faith. It is a legitimate procedural step built into the claims handling framework, and understanding how to navigate it professionally can mean the difference between a stalled claim and an appropriate resolution.

The legal and regulatory foundation for escalation rights varies somewhat across Canadian jurisdictions, though the core principles remain consistent. In common law provinces including British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and the Atlantic provinces, insurance contracts are governed by provincial insurance statutes and interpreted according to common law principles developed through decades of judicial decisions. The Insurance Act in each of these provinces establishes the framework within which insurers must operate, including requirements around fair dealing and reasonable claims handling. British Columbia's Insurance Act and Ontario's Insurance Act both impose statutory conditions on insurance contracts and create regulatory oversight through their respective superintendents of insurance. Alberta's Insurance Act similarly establishes regulatory authority through the Superintendent of Insurance, who has broad powers to investigate complaints and, where appropriate, intervene in systemic issues affecting policyholders. As of the date of authorship, these statutes do not typically prescribe specific internal escalation procedures that insurers must follow, but they create the regulatory environment that incentivizes insurers to maintain robust complaint handling processes.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $149 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.